Even OJ would be impressed by this defense team. No one is saying the label changed the coin. The polishing cloth did.
Coin was dipped just as were many, many coins in no-problem holders. I see no signs of a mechanical cleaning on this coin. It will end up in a no problem holder.
That's all well and good, and you may very well be right in your crystal balling. But where does that prognostication justify a pre-problem free reholdering price bump of 2+ grades higher?
About once a year I get to post my favorite foolish listing of his. The ole 1880-O Morgan that was in PCGS-64, he got it into NGC-64+, and is asking 34 GRAND!!!!! The last 2 MS65 1880-O Morgans at Heritage sold for 10K each. One in PCGS and one in NGC. Those coins are already MS65 and he wants 24K more for his 64+. Just goofy.
If only Julian's 50 years of knowledge that justifies this price to so many, could somehow follow the coin to the new owner so that he doesn't get the shaft at resale time....hmmmm JULIAN STICKERS!!!!!
So now you want to attack his pricing strategy?
Buyer ultimately determines what the coin is worth, not the seller. As noted in this thread this particular seller lists a high BIN and almost always settles on a lower offer. Any reseller of his merchandise, or any merchandise in general, who gets shafted at time of resell only shafted himself by not doing his homework.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
About once a year I get to post my favorite foolish listing of his. The ole 1880-O Morgan that was in PCGS-64, he got it into NGC-64+, and is asking 34 GRAND!!!!! The last 2 MS65 1880-O Morgans at Heritage sold for 10K each. One in PCGS and one in NGC. Those coins are already MS65 and he wants 24K more for his 64+. Just goofy.
If only Julian's 50 years of knowledge that justifies this price to so many, could somehow follow the coin to the new owner so that he doesn't get the shaft at resale time....hmmmm JULIAN STICKERS!!!!!
So now you want to attack his pricing strategy? Buyer ultimately determines what the coin is worth, not the seller. As noted many times in this thread this particular seller list a high BIN and almost always settles on a lower offer. Any reseller who gets shafted at time of resell only shafted himself.
Even OJ would be impressed by this defense team. No one is saying the label changed the coin. The polishing cloth did.
Coin was dipped just as were many, many coins in no-problem holders. I see no signs of a mechanical cleaning on this coin. It will end up in a no problem holder.
That's all well and good, and you may very well be right in your crystal balling. But where does that prognostication justify a pre-problem free reholdering price bump of 2+ grades higher?
We don't know what this coin will sell for. We only know we have a seller who normally lists for moon money only to end up settling for a lower offer. When that lower offer transpires and if it does end up being 2+ grades higher it will be because the buyer set the price, not the seller.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
About once a year I get to post my favorite foolish listing of his. The ole 1880-O Morgan that was in PCGS-64, he got it into NGC-64+, and is asking 34 GRAND!!!!! The last 2 MS65 1880-O Morgans at Heritage sold for 10K each. One in PCGS and one in NGC. Those coins are already MS65 and he wants 24K more for his 64+. Just goofy.
If only Julian's 50 years of knowledge that justifies this price to so many, could somehow follow the coin to the new owner so that he doesn't get the shaft at resale time....hmmmm JULIAN STICKERS!!!!!
So now you want to attack his pricing strategy? Buyer ultimately determines what the coin is worth, not the seller. As noted many times in this thread this particular seller list a high BIN and almost always settles on a lower offer. Any reseller who gets shafted at time of resell only shafted himself.
The same can be said for chinese forgeries.
Now we're back to accusing the seller of misrepresenting the coin? I gotta disagree with that, again. Seller made extra effort to fully disclose history of coin.
Look, I don't like the coin and I certainly don't like the price. I do like that the seller did not crack it out and try to misrepresent it.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Originally posted by: Danye West ^ The "PCGS MS63 Coin" did. Because it is no longer in a PCGS MS63 holder.
The label changed the coin?
I once got a gold buffalo back from the TPG with a label that incorrectly said "Gold Eagle." Coin still looked like a gold buffalo.
Once the coin was taken out of the MS63 holder, that label no longer applies to the coin. That TPG opinion is no longer valid. It's irrelevant and misleading for the seller to include pictures and references to the old MS63 label in the auction listing. He's trying to sell a coin as something it's not or no longer is. The coin didn't change, but the label did and the old label no longer is relevant. It's a cleaned coin. End of story.
About once a year I get to post my favorite foolish listing of his. The ole 1880-O Morgan that was in PCGS-64, he got it into NGC-64+, and is asking 34 GRAND!!!!! The last 2 MS65 1880-O Morgans at Heritage sold for 10K each. One in PCGS and one in NGC. Those coins are already MS65 and he wants 24K more for his 64+. Just goofy.
If only Julian's 50 years of knowledge that justifies this price to so many, could somehow follow the coin to the new owner so that he doesn't get the shaft at resale time....hmmmm JULIAN STICKERS!!!!!
So now you want to attack his pricing strategy? Buyer ultimately determines what the coin is worth, not the seller. As noted many times in this thread this particular seller list a high BIN and almost always settles on a lower offer. Any reseller who gets shafted at time of resell only shafted himself.
The same can be said for chinese forgeries.
Now we're back to accusing the seller of misrepresenting the coin? I gotta disagree with that, again. Seller made extra effort to fully disclose history of coin.
Look, I don't like the coin and I certainly don't like the price. I do like that the seller did not crack it out and try to misrepresent it.
But the history of the coin is irrelevant and misleading. Once the coin was taken out of the MS63 holder, that TPG's opinion no longer is valid. Plus, a previous poster compared the pictures side-by-side and clearly shows that cleaning did occur since being removed from the MS63 holder. It's not the same condition coin since what it was in the MS63 holder. Plus, to include the MS63 holder history is misleading as it suggests to prospective buyers that all they need to do is send it back in and get that MS63 holder again. Likely, it's been sent in by the seller many times to get it back into a graded holder because there's far more upside to the selling price in a graded holder than a problem holder. Including the pictures for the previous MS63 slab is misrepresenting the current state of the coin and providing a now irrelevant history.
Some of you are defending the auction listing as being "honest" because he's disclosing the history of the coin (once was in an MS63 holder). But the seller is being very selective in disclosing the history of the coin. He discloses that it was once in an MS63 holder, but he's not disclosing that an apparent attempt was made to improve the coin after removal from the MS63 holder. The seller is also not disclosing how many times he resubmitted the coin (and failed) at getting it in a higher graded holder or back to any graded holder. The seller is being very selective with what he's disclosing about the coin's history and quite a lot is being omitted.
Read the PCGS website. They clearly state that their grade is no longer guaranteed once a coin has been removed from a PCGS holder. And certainly the previous PCGS grade has even less relevance once the coin has had additional cleaning done to it. The prior MS63 slab is completely irrelevant to the current state of that coin and shouldn't be included with the auction. If anything, it says loudly that the coin has been tampered with since the previous MS63 holder and of itself speaks poorly of the seller (if the seller was in fact the person who removed it from the MS63 holder and tampered with the coin). Including the MS63 holder information with the auction is also misleading because it is misrepresenting PCGS's previous grading opinion as still being relevant to the present coin.
Sure, the seller asks for moon money on all his auctions. Who cares about that as it's his decision. My issue with this auction (and several others of his) is that he misrepresents the coins.
Wonder how many raw coins on ebay in the 5 figures the guys calling slabs just opinions, are willing to buy.
None. You cannot list a coin on eBay as a Buy It Now (BIN) with a price of $2500 or more unless it is slabbed by one of the approved grading companies (currently ANACS, ICG, NGC, and PCGS).
-Brandon -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- My sets: [280+ horse coins] :: [France Sowers] :: [Colorful world copper] :: [Beautiful world coins] -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
what makes me laugh about this thread is imagining i own the coin and i am shopping it around at a show as a 64. i would get laughed out of the building. i doubt anyone would offer me MS money for it.
This right here people!!!
You're talking about this coin, right?
No, I was talking about the "IMPROPERLY CLEANED" coin in the NGC holder. The PCGS MS63 coin ceased to exist once it was cracked out.
Coin never changed, labels (opinions) did. Coin speaks for itself - labels are opinions. You can change them all day, but the coin remains the same. Your comments provide proof that some collect coins and others collect labels.
I guess I should have been more comprehensive in my original comment. The point that I was trying to make was that a collector could never hope to recover his investment on this coin as it is currently priced if he/she were to shop it among dealers in it's current slab.
I collect coins, not labels. But I am not so naïve as to believe that this same coin first offered in a problem free PCGS slab and then immediately offered in an NGC slab with "IMPROPERLY CLEANED" splashed across the label would sell for the same money. Furthermore, if I were to crack it out and offer it raw I would expect yet another price. I generally ignore labels when looking at coins, but the label matters if/when you plan on selling.
Originally posted by: crazyhounddog Lets give this a break. I don't really see this going anywhere . Enough already.
Why stifle free speech? It's an interesting thread that has stayed relatively reasonable - and the thread speaks to current issues in the coin business.
The "PCGS MS63 Coin" did. Because it is no longer in a PCGS MS63 holder.
The label changed the coin?
I once got a gold buffalo back from the TPG with a label that incorrectly said "Gold Eagle." Coin still looked like a gold buffalo.
Once the coin was taken out of the MS63 holder, that label no longer applies to the coin. That TPG opinion is no longer valid. It's irrelevant and misleading for the seller to include pictures and references to the old MS63 label in the auction listing. He's trying to sell a coin as something it's not or no longer is. The coin didn't change, but the label did and the old label no longer is relevant. It's a cleaned coin. End of story.
I have the strangest feeling that, if the coin's history were reversed (ie.....selling in a higher/non-problem holder but had previously been in a lower/problem holder), your argument would be reverse of what it is now. You would be screaming that the old label applies. That the previous opinion was valid, relevant, and necessary to be disclosed.
You are certainly putting a lot of energy into this one.
Originally posted by: Danye West ^ The "PCGS MS63 Coin" did. Because it is no longer in a PCGS MS63 holder.
The label changed the coin?
I once got a gold buffalo back from the TPG with a label that incorrectly said "Gold Eagle." Coin still looked like a gold buffalo.
Once the coin was taken out of the MS63 holder, that label no longer applies to the coin. That TPG opinion is no longer valid. It's irrelevant and misleading for the seller to include pictures and references to the old MS63 label in the auction listing. He's trying to sell a coin as something it's not or no longer is. The coin didn't change, but the label did and the old label no longer is relevant. It's a cleaned coin. End of story.
I have the strangest feeling that, if the coin's history were reversed (ie.....selling in a higher/non-problem holder but had previously been in a lower/problem holder), your argument would be reverse of what it is now. You would be screaming that the old label applies. That the previous opinion was valid, relevant, and necessary to be disclosed.
You are certainly putting a lot of energy into this one.
Nope. I'd have the same opinion. The current TPG opinion is what counts. Once the coin has been removed from the TPG holder, that opinion no longer applies.
The seller was very selective in what part of the coin's history he included in the auction. He chose not to include information about how many times it was submitted to try to get it back into a graded holder or include information how/why the coin was cleaned since being removed from the MS63 holder.
The coin is being sold in the present with the present TPG holder, not in the past with the previous TPG holder. Whether the previous TPG holder was better or worse is irrelevant.
The "PCGS MS63 Coin" did. Because it is no longer in a PCGS MS63 holder.
The label changed the coin?
I once got a gold buffalo back from the TPG with a label that incorrectly said "Gold Eagle." Coin still looked like a gold buffalo.
Once the coin was taken out of the MS63 holder, that label no longer applies to the coin. That TPG opinion is no longer valid. It's irrelevant and misleading for the seller to include pictures and references to the old MS63 label in the auction listing. He's trying to sell a coin as something it's not or no longer is. The coin didn't change, but the label did and the old label no longer is relevant. It's a cleaned coin. End of story.
I have the strangest feeling that, if the coin's history were reversed (ie.....selling in a higher/non-problem holder but had previously been in a lower/problem holder), your argument would be reverse of what it is now. You would be screaming that the old label applies. That the previous opinion was valid, relevant, and necessary to be disclosed.
You are certainly putting a lot of energy into this one.
Nope. I'd have the same opinion. The current TPG opinion is what counts. Once the coin has been removed from the TPG holder, that opinion no longer applies.
The seller was very selective in what part of the coin's history he included in the auction. He chose not to include information about how many times it was submitted to try to get it back into a graded holder or include information how/why the coin was cleaned since being removed from the MS63 holder.
The coin is being sold in the present with the present TPG holder, not in the past with the previous TPG holder. Whether the previous TPG holder was better or worse is irrelevant.
And, YOU KNOW, for a fact, that the seller KNOWS that information that you are saying he "chose not to include"? For a fact, you know this?
I must have missed it in the thread or on the ebay page.
I wouldn't buy the coin, I have my own issues with how it, and others like it, are sold. That said, I am not a mind reader, I wasn't there 100% of the time, and I am not on a witchhunt. You must be at least 1 of those, in order for how you state what you do as fact.
So far, there are what I see are assumptions:
* The coin was cleaned after cracking out of PCGS and attempting NGC
* The seller is the one who cracked it out and has attempted to get it back in a "good" holder
* The seller has submitted the coin (multiple times) to the TPGSs
(while these may be valid assumptions, they also may not be, but you seem to take them as gospel...as do some others)
And, I will be VERY direct in saying this: Any previous holder, if the coin has not been worked on/altered/etc, IS relevant to MANY of us as collectors.
If I know the coin was considered AT (maybe multiple times), I would like to know. I may disagree, but that is still info that would be good to know.
Side note: This thread has been, at times, both illuminating in how people treat others, and boring, as many are retreading their own prejudices, one way or another.
There are some that take things, and use information at hand, and make logical statements and thoughts. Others just like to pounce and have their voices heard.
The two images of the coin only seem to differ in exposure, white balance, etc.... All details are the same. What am I missing other than it's a crack out gone bad?
Originally posted by: unclebob The two images of the coin only seem to differ in exposure, white balance, etc.... All details are the same. What am I missing other than it's a crack out gone bad?
Possibly dipped, not considered a "cleaning" by most professionals.
Note the number of posts that give full faith to the coin's latest TPG opinion, but no faith in previous TPG opinion. I guess the latest is the greatest to some.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Originally posted by: unclebob The two images of the coin only seem to differ in exposure, white balance, etc.... All details are the same. What am I missing other than it's a crack out gone bad?
Possibly dipped, not considered a "cleaning" by most professionals.
Note the number of posts that give full faith to the coin's latest TPG opinion, but no faith in previous TPG opinion. I guess the latest is the greatest to some.
Once the coin was cracked out of the previous TPG holder, that opinion became moot. PCGS clearly states that they don't guarantee their grading opinion when a coin has been removed from the holder. And you can't assume it's the exact same coin between the MS63 holder and the cleaned holder. And the seller is choosing not to disclose how many resubmissions occurred between the MS63 holder and the cleaned holder. Too much has possibly happened since the MS63 holder that you can't assume the MS63 holder is valid or even possible. It's in the seller's best interest to have the coin in a graded holder than a cleaned holder so it's a reasonable assumption to assume the seller has tried to get it back in a graded holder and failed.
Obviously the PCGS guarantee does not apply to previous labels but it is very clearly relevant to potential customers (assuming the coin hasn't been messed with in the interim). I don't know why you keep implying otherwise.
Originally posted by: david3142 Obviously the PCGS guarantee does not apply to previous labels but it is very clearly relevant to potential customers (assuming the coin hasn't been messed with in the interim). I don't know why you keep implying otherwise.
But the seller, by including the old slab, is using PCGS's no-longer-guaranteed grade to his advantage. If PCGS no longer recognizes the MS63 grade from that slab, then why should the seller still use that PCGS opinion to sell his coin? He's implying that the old PCGS grade is still valid (and highlighting it in the auction title). It is questionable ethics by the seller.
The fact that he cracked out a coin that is clearly cleaned, and now labeled such by the grading companies, should tell you a little about his ability to grade coins. Take that for what it is worth if you want to believe that many of his coins are undergraded or problem free.
On a side note, I have never seen someone crack a coin, it ends up correctly graded cleaned, and then they try and sell it for the next grade up, problem free. Man do I have a bunch of coins for sale to anyone who thinks this is acceptable. I understand that he is a friend of many of you but you all would not buy those coins for anywhere near those prices, or at any price for the problem ones. It is a valid point to make about a seller pulling these shenanigans.
With all the discussion of the plastic and the price, forgotten is the appearance of this coin, indisputably a beautiful example of the issue
Isolated from all this context, just looking at this picture, I'd call it a problem-free, choice uncirculated coin with a great strike, no marks of singular note, and nice color and luster , but of course would want to tilt and rotate it under good lights, take a glass to it, look at the edges, etc, to arrive at a numerical grade and an opinion of the overall "fabric" of the coin (and maybe there are faint hairlines or friction that might be worth a point or two off the overall grade), but to me the current holder is worse than useless in determining the value of the piece, too many people would by reflex not want anything to do with this coin at any price point whatsoever while it's in that plastic, and would consider a "fair" net grade and value to be less than Zero. And to me, this attitude is probably the biggest problem in numismatics, and maybe Julian is saying as much with this listing, and a couple of his others that I referenced earlier (the early dime and half dime) to me these are dream coins that I'd be very proud to own. In fact, I have a few coins that have details and "net" grades that I'm very proud of and wouldn't sell for less than my price based on my net grade opinion, which in a "problem" holder is far less than such a rare and desirable coin should be worth, relative to the population. It's a shame that modern TPG and FPG grading tries to boil the value of a coin down to an interger (or not) and a sticker (or not)
Originally posted by: Baley With all the discussion of the plastic and the price, forgotten is the appearance of this coin, indisputably a beautiful example of the issue
Isolated from all this context, just looking at this picture, I'd call it a problem-free, choice uncirculated coin with a great strike, no marks of singular note, and nice color and luster , but of course would want to tilt and rotate it under good lights, take a glass to it, look at the edges, etc, to arrive at a numerical grade and an opinion of the overall "fabric" of the coin (and maybe there are faint hairlines or friction that might be worth a point or two off the overall grade), but to me the current holder is worse than useless in determining the value of the piece, too many people would by reflex not want anything to do with this coin at any price point whatsoever while it's in that plastic, and would consider a "fair" net grade and value to be less than Zero. And to me, this attitude is probably the biggest problem in numismatics, and maybe Julian is saying as much with this listing, and a couple of his others that I referenced earlier (the early dime and half dime) to me these are dream coins that I'd be very proud to own. In fact, I have a few coins that have details and "net" grades that I'm very proud of and wouldn't sell for less than my price based on my net grade opinion, which in a "problem" holder is far less than such a rare and desirable coin should be worth, relative to the population. It's a shame that modern TPG and FPG grading tries to boil the value of a coin down to an interger (or not) and a sticker (or not)
But the picture you're referencing and calling a beautiful coin is the picture from the old MS63 holder, not the newer, cleaned holder. Your defending of the seller's auction has just as many ethical issues as the seller's auction itself. The MS63 holdered coin NO LONGER EXISTS in that PCGS grade opinion and you don't know what doctoring was done to the coin between the MS63 holder and the cleaned holder. Judge the coin in its present condition, not a past condition.
But the picture you're referencing and calling a beautiful coin is the picture from the old MS63 holder, not the newer, cleaned holder. Your defending of the seller's auction has just as many ethical issues as the seller's auction itself. The MS63 holdered coin NO LONGER EXISTS in that PCGS grade opinion and you don't know what doctoring was done to the coin between the MS63 holder and the cleaned holder. Judge the coin in its present condition, not a past condition.
No, I'm looking at all the pictures available to me: those in the listing (which shows the coin in 3 different holders, note the prongs) and the above trueview.
It's not clear to me that anything was "done" to the coin other than different plastic and photographic lighting/technique
Note that the picture comparison earlier in the thread isn't of the current NGC white prong "unc/cleaned" holder, it's the previous PCGS prong and some other "no prong" holder, maybe even earlier PCGS
Originally posted by: TigersFan2 If you look at his sold auctions, probably 95% were sold at best offer, so no way to see what prices he actually found the market willing to pay. But he does like to start high.
If you have "terapeak", you can find out exactl what every "Best Offer" coin sold for.
This has been an interesting thread to read for sure. I'm thinking if someone actually bought that coin in the current holder at that 'optimistic' price, they will find out very quickly that they've boarded a screaming bullet train riding on the track called 'One Way Market'.
Is it possible that the coin was cracked out and lightly dipped and the dip revealed that the previous toning effectively covered up an even earlier improper cleaning?
I think the bottom line in all this might be something like:
If YOU are one of a very few who believe a coin is of a certain quality, (be it grade, cleaning status, eye appeal, etc), then you may enjoy the coin, but may never get your investment back. So be careful....
There does seem to be a lot of coins in inventory here that have this "special status" caution flag flying....
Comments
Even OJ would be impressed by this defense team. No one is saying the label changed the coin. The polishing cloth did.
Coin was dipped just as were many, many coins in no-problem holders. I see no signs of a mechanical cleaning on this coin. It will end up in a no problem holder.
That's all well and good, and you may very well be right in your crystal balling. But where does that prognostication justify a pre-problem free reholdering price bump of 2+ grades higher?
About once a year I get to post my favorite foolish listing of his. The ole 1880-O Morgan that was in PCGS-64, he got it into NGC-64+, and is asking 34 GRAND!!!!! The last 2 MS65 1880-O Morgans at Heritage sold for 10K each. One in PCGS and one in NGC. Those coins are already MS65 and he wants 24K more for his 64+. Just goofy.
Here is the listing on eBay:
If only Julian's 50 years of knowledge that justifies this price to so many, could somehow follow the coin to the new owner so that he doesn't get the shaft at resale time....hmmmm JULIAN STICKERS!!!!!
So now you want to attack his pricing strategy?
Buyer ultimately determines what the coin is worth, not the seller. As noted in this thread this particular seller lists a high BIN and almost always settles on a lower offer. Any reseller of his merchandise, or any merchandise in general, who gets shafted at time of resell only shafted himself by not doing his homework.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
About once a year I get to post my favorite foolish listing of his. The ole 1880-O Morgan that was in PCGS-64, he got it into NGC-64+, and is asking 34 GRAND!!!!! The last 2 MS65 1880-O Morgans at Heritage sold for 10K each. One in PCGS and one in NGC. Those coins are already MS65 and he wants 24K more for his 64+. Just goofy.
Here is the listing on eBay:
If only Julian's 50 years of knowledge that justifies this price to so many, could somehow follow the coin to the new owner so that he doesn't get the shaft at resale time....hmmmm JULIAN STICKERS!!!!!
So now you want to attack his pricing strategy? Buyer ultimately determines what the coin is worth, not the seller. As noted many times in this thread this particular seller list a high BIN and almost always settles on a lower offer. Any reseller who gets shafted at time of resell only shafted himself.
The same can be said for chinese forgeries.
Even OJ would be impressed by this defense team. No one is saying the label changed the coin. The polishing cloth did.
Coin was dipped just as were many, many coins in no-problem holders. I see no signs of a mechanical cleaning on this coin. It will end up in a no problem holder.
That's all well and good, and you may very well be right in your crystal balling. But where does that prognostication justify a pre-problem free reholdering price bump of 2+ grades higher?
We don't know what this coin will sell for. We only know we have a seller who normally lists for moon money only to end up settling for a lower offer. When that lower offer transpires and if it does end up being 2+ grades higher it will be because the buyer set the price, not the seller.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
About once a year I get to post my favorite foolish listing of his. The ole 1880-O Morgan that was in PCGS-64, he got it into NGC-64+, and is asking 34 GRAND!!!!! The last 2 MS65 1880-O Morgans at Heritage sold for 10K each. One in PCGS and one in NGC. Those coins are already MS65 and he wants 24K more for his 64+. Just goofy.
Here is the listing on eBay:
If only Julian's 50 years of knowledge that justifies this price to so many, could somehow follow the coin to the new owner so that he doesn't get the shaft at resale time....hmmmm JULIAN STICKERS!!!!!
So now you want to attack his pricing strategy? Buyer ultimately determines what the coin is worth, not the seller. As noted many times in this thread this particular seller list a high BIN and almost always settles on a lower offer. Any reseller who gets shafted at time of resell only shafted himself.
The same can be said for chinese forgeries.
Now we're back to accusing the seller of misrepresenting the coin? I gotta disagree with that, again. Seller made extra effort to fully disclose history of coin.
Look, I don't like the coin and I certainly don't like the price. I do like that the seller did not crack it out and try to misrepresent it.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
^
The "PCGS MS63 Coin" did. Because it is no longer in a PCGS MS63 holder.
The label changed the coin?
I once got a gold buffalo back from the TPG with a label that incorrectly said "Gold Eagle." Coin still looked like a gold buffalo.
Once the coin was taken out of the MS63 holder, that label no longer applies to the coin. That TPG opinion is no longer valid. It's irrelevant and misleading for the seller to include pictures and references to the old MS63 label in the auction listing. He's trying to sell a coin as something it's not or no longer is. The coin didn't change, but the label did and the old label no longer is relevant. It's a cleaned coin. End of story.
About once a year I get to post my favorite foolish listing of his. The ole 1880-O Morgan that was in PCGS-64, he got it into NGC-64+, and is asking 34 GRAND!!!!! The last 2 MS65 1880-O Morgans at Heritage sold for 10K each. One in PCGS and one in NGC. Those coins are already MS65 and he wants 24K more for his 64+. Just goofy.
Here is the listing on eBay:
If only Julian's 50 years of knowledge that justifies this price to so many, could somehow follow the coin to the new owner so that he doesn't get the shaft at resale time....hmmmm JULIAN STICKERS!!!!!
So now you want to attack his pricing strategy? Buyer ultimately determines what the coin is worth, not the seller. As noted many times in this thread this particular seller list a high BIN and almost always settles on a lower offer. Any reseller who gets shafted at time of resell only shafted himself.
The same can be said for chinese forgeries.
Now we're back to accusing the seller of misrepresenting the coin? I gotta disagree with that, again. Seller made extra effort to fully disclose history of coin.
Look, I don't like the coin and I certainly don't like the price. I do like that the seller did not crack it out and try to misrepresent it.
But the history of the coin is irrelevant and misleading. Once the coin was taken out of the MS63 holder, that TPG's opinion no longer is valid. Plus, a previous poster compared the pictures side-by-side and clearly shows that cleaning did occur since being removed from the MS63 holder. It's not the same condition coin since what it was in the MS63 holder. Plus, to include the MS63 holder history is misleading as it suggests to prospective buyers that all they need to do is send it back in and get that MS63 holder again. Likely, it's been sent in by the seller many times to get it back into a graded holder because there's far more upside to the selling price in a graded holder than a problem holder. Including the pictures for the previous MS63 slab is misrepresenting the current state of the coin and providing a now irrelevant history.
Read the PCGS website. They clearly state that their grade is no longer guaranteed once a coin has been removed from a PCGS holder. And certainly the previous PCGS grade has even less relevance once the coin has had additional cleaning done to it. The prior MS63 slab is completely irrelevant to the current state of that coin and shouldn't be included with the auction. If anything, it says loudly that the coin has been tampered with since the previous MS63 holder and of itself speaks poorly of the seller (if the seller was in fact the person who removed it from the MS63 holder and tampered with the coin). Including the MS63 holder information with the auction is also misleading because it is misrepresenting PCGS's previous grading opinion as still being relevant to the present coin.
Sure, the seller asks for moon money on all his auctions. Who cares about that as it's his decision. My issue with this auction (and several others of his) is that he misrepresents the coins.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Wonder how many raw coins on ebay in the 5 figures the guys calling slabs just opinions, are willing to buy.
None. You cannot list a coin on eBay as a Buy It Now (BIN) with a price of $2500 or more unless it is slabbed by one of the approved grading companies (currently ANACS, ICG, NGC, and PCGS).
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
My sets: [280+ horse coins] :: [France Sowers] :: [Colorful world copper] :: [Beautiful world coins]
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
The history of a coin is relevant to my interests if I want to buy a particular coin. The price that a dealer asks is none of my business.
Check out my iPhone app SlabReader!
My YouTube Channel
This right here people!!!
You're talking about this coin, right?
No, I was talking about the "IMPROPERLY CLEANED" coin in the NGC holder. The PCGS MS63 coin ceased to exist once it was cracked out.
Coin never changed, labels (opinions) did. Coin speaks for itself - labels are opinions. You can change them all day, but the coin remains the same. Your comments provide proof that some collect coins and others collect labels.
I guess I should have been more comprehensive in my original comment. The point that I was trying to make was that a collector could never hope to recover his investment on this coin as it is currently priced if he/she were to shop it among dealers in it's current slab.
I collect coins, not labels. But I am not so naïve as to believe that this same coin first offered in a problem free PCGS slab and then immediately offered in an NGC slab with "IMPROPERLY CLEANED" splashed across the label would sell for the same money. Furthermore, if I were to crack it out and offer it raw I would expect yet another price. I generally ignore labels when looking at coins, but the label matters if/when you plan on selling.
Lets give this a break. I don't really see this going anywhere . Enough already.
Why stifle free speech? It's an interesting thread that has stayed relatively reasonable - and
the thread speaks to current issues in the coin business.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
Lets give this a break. I don't really see this going anywhere . Enough already.
Where do you put the toner?
^
The "PCGS MS63 Coin" did. Because it is no longer in a PCGS MS63 holder.
The label changed the coin?
I once got a gold buffalo back from the TPG with a label that incorrectly said "Gold Eagle." Coin still looked like a gold buffalo.
Once the coin was taken out of the MS63 holder, that label no longer applies to the coin. That TPG opinion is no longer valid. It's irrelevant and misleading for the seller to include pictures and references to the old MS63 label in the auction listing. He's trying to sell a coin as something it's not or no longer is. The coin didn't change, but the label did and the old label no longer is relevant. It's a cleaned coin. End of story.
I have the strangest feeling that, if the coin's history were reversed (ie.....selling in a higher/non-problem holder but had previously been in a lower/problem holder), your argument would be reverse of what it is now. You would be screaming that the old label applies. That the previous opinion was valid, relevant, and necessary to be disclosed.
You are certainly putting a lot of energy into this one.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
^
The "PCGS MS63 Coin" did. Because it is no longer in a PCGS MS63 holder.
The label changed the coin?
I once got a gold buffalo back from the TPG with a label that incorrectly said "Gold Eagle." Coin still looked like a gold buffalo.
Once the coin was taken out of the MS63 holder, that label no longer applies to the coin. That TPG opinion is no longer valid. It's irrelevant and misleading for the seller to include pictures and references to the old MS63 label in the auction listing. He's trying to sell a coin as something it's not or no longer is. The coin didn't change, but the label did and the old label no longer is relevant. It's a cleaned coin. End of story.
I have the strangest feeling that, if the coin's history were reversed (ie.....selling in a higher/non-problem holder but had previously been in a lower/problem holder), your argument would be reverse of what it is now. You would be screaming that the old label applies. That the previous opinion was valid, relevant, and necessary to be disclosed.
You are certainly putting a lot of energy into this one.
Nope. I'd have the same opinion. The current TPG opinion is what counts. Once the coin has been removed from the TPG holder, that opinion no longer applies.
The seller was very selective in what part of the coin's history he included in the auction. He chose not to include information about how many times it was submitted to try to get it back into a graded holder or include information how/why the coin was cleaned since being removed from the MS63 holder.
The coin is being sold in the present with the present TPG holder, not in the past with the previous TPG holder. Whether the previous TPG holder was better or worse is irrelevant.
^
The "PCGS MS63 Coin" did. Because it is no longer in a PCGS MS63 holder.
The label changed the coin?
I once got a gold buffalo back from the TPG with a label that incorrectly said "Gold Eagle." Coin still looked like a gold buffalo.
Once the coin was taken out of the MS63 holder, that label no longer applies to the coin. That TPG opinion is no longer valid. It's irrelevant and misleading for the seller to include pictures and references to the old MS63 label in the auction listing. He's trying to sell a coin as something it's not or no longer is. The coin didn't change, but the label did and the old label no longer is relevant. It's a cleaned coin. End of story.
I have the strangest feeling that, if the coin's history were reversed (ie.....selling in a higher/non-problem holder but had previously been in a lower/problem holder), your argument would be reverse of what it is now. You would be screaming that the old label applies. That the previous opinion was valid, relevant, and necessary to be disclosed.
You are certainly putting a lot of energy into this one.
Nope. I'd have the same opinion. The current TPG opinion is what counts. Once the coin has been removed from the TPG holder, that opinion no longer applies.
The seller was very selective in what part of the coin's history he included in the auction. He chose not to include information about how many times it was submitted to try to get it back into a graded holder or include information how/why the coin was cleaned since being removed from the MS63 holder.
The coin is being sold in the present with the present TPG holder, not in the past with the previous TPG holder. Whether the previous TPG holder was better or worse is irrelevant.
And, YOU KNOW, for a fact, that the seller KNOWS that information that you are saying he "chose not to include"? For a fact, you know this?
I must have missed it in the thread or on the ebay page.
I wouldn't buy the coin, I have my own issues with how it, and others like it, are sold. That said, I am not a mind reader, I wasn't there 100% of the time, and I am not on a witchhunt. You must be at least 1 of those, in order for how you state what you do as fact.
So far, there are what I see are assumptions:
* The coin was cleaned after cracking out of PCGS and attempting NGC
* The seller is the one who cracked it out and has attempted to get it back in a "good" holder
* The seller has submitted the coin (multiple times) to the TPGSs
(while these may be valid assumptions, they also may not be, but you seem to take them as gospel...as do some others)
And, I will be VERY direct in saying this: Any previous holder, if the coin has not been worked on/altered/etc, IS relevant to MANY of us as collectors.
If I know the coin was considered AT (maybe multiple times), I would like to know. I may disagree, but that is still info that would be good to know.
Side note: This thread has been, at times, both illuminating in how people treat others, and boring, as many are retreading their own prejudices, one way or another.
There are some that take things, and use information at hand, and make logical statements and thoughts. Others just like to pounce and have their voices heard.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
What's a schroom?
Similar to a picteal, only different.
see my icon
DPOTD-3
'Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery'
CU #3245 B.N.A. #428
Don
The two images of the coin only seem to differ in exposure, white balance, etc.... All details are the same. What am I missing other than it's a crack out gone bad?
Possibly dipped, not considered a "cleaning" by most professionals.
Note the number of posts that give full faith to the coin's latest TPG opinion, but no faith in previous TPG opinion. I guess the latest is the greatest to some.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Julian used to be my local B&M.
His knowledge is quite remarkable, and he is very personable.
Also no one has mentioned that this coin in question could be a consigned piece with the price estrablished by the consignee.
I've seen worse crimes than this perpetuated on the BST
The two images of the coin only seem to differ in exposure, white balance, etc.... All details are the same. What am I missing other than it's a crack out gone bad?
Possibly dipped, not considered a "cleaning" by most professionals.
Note the number of posts that give full faith to the coin's latest TPG opinion, but no faith in previous TPG opinion. I guess the latest is the greatest to some.
Once the coin was cracked out of the previous TPG holder, that opinion became moot. PCGS clearly states that they don't guarantee their grading opinion when a coin has been removed from the holder. And you can't assume it's the exact same coin between the MS63 holder and the cleaned holder. And the seller is choosing not to disclose how many resubmissions occurred between the MS63 holder and the cleaned holder. Too much has possibly happened since the MS63 holder that you can't assume the MS63 holder is valid or even possible. It's in the seller's best interest to have the coin in a graded holder than a cleaned holder so it's a reasonable assumption to assume the seller has tried to get it back in a graded holder and failed.
This is a pointless thread.
Julian used to be my local B&M.
His knowledge is quite remarkable, and he is very personable.
Also no one has mentioned that this coin in question could be a consigned piece with the price estrablished by the consignee.
I've seen worse crimes than this perpetuated on the BST
So pointless that you felt compelled to reply with anecdotal defense.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
My sets: [280+ horse coins] :: [France Sowers] :: [Colorful world copper] :: [Beautiful world coins]
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Let's just be glad he is only on the board of experts and not in the grading room!
Julian, put it in a 10 day auction starting at face value.
I'm sure there will be no shilling to protect the coin from selling at what it is currently worth.
peacockcoins
Those that have not sinned cast this first stone.
Man didn't any of your parents teach you common decency?
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Judge ye not least ye be judged.
Those that have not sinned cast this first stone.
Man didn't any of your parents teach you common decency?
Ironically, you're judging some within this thread for writing their opinions.
peacockcoins
Obviously the PCGS guarantee does not apply to previous labels but it is very clearly relevant to potential customers (assuming the coin hasn't been messed with in the interim). I don't know why you keep implying otherwise.
But the seller, by including the old slab, is using PCGS's no-longer-guaranteed grade to his advantage. If PCGS no longer recognizes the MS63 grade from that slab, then why should the seller still use that PCGS opinion to sell his coin? He's implying that the old PCGS grade is still valid (and highlighting it in the auction title). It is questionable ethics by the seller.
On a side note, I have never seen someone crack a coin, it ends up correctly graded cleaned, and then they try and sell it for the next grade up, problem free. Man do I have a bunch of coins for sale to anyone who thinks this is acceptable. I understand that he is a friend of many of you but you all would not buy those coins for anywhere near those prices, or at any price for the problem ones. It is a valid point to make about a seller pulling these shenanigans.
Isolated from all this context, just looking at this picture, I'd call it a problem-free, choice uncirculated coin with a great strike, no marks of singular note, and nice color and luster , but of course would want to tilt and rotate it under good lights, take a glass to it, look at the edges, etc, to arrive at a numerical grade and an opinion of the overall "fabric" of the coin (and maybe there are faint hairlines or friction that might be worth a point or two off the overall grade), but to me the current holder is worse than useless in determining the value of the piece, too many people would by reflex not want anything to do with this coin at any price point whatsoever while it's in that plastic, and would consider a "fair" net grade and value to be less than Zero. And to me, this attitude is probably the biggest problem in numismatics, and maybe Julian is saying as much with this listing, and a couple of his others that I referenced earlier (the early dime and half dime) to me these are dream coins that I'd be very proud to own. In fact, I have a few coins that have details and "net" grades that I'm very proud of and wouldn't sell for less than my price based on my net grade opinion, which in a "problem" holder is far less than such a rare and desirable coin should be worth, relative to the population. It's a shame that modern TPG and FPG grading tries to boil the value of a coin down to an interger (or not) and a sticker (or not)
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
With all the discussion of the plastic and the price, forgotten is the appearance of this coin, indisputably a beautiful example of the issue
Isolated from all this context, just looking at this picture, I'd call it a problem-free, choice uncirculated coin with a great strike, no marks of singular note, and nice color and luster , but of course would want to tilt and rotate it under good lights, take a glass to it, look at the edges, etc, to arrive at a numerical grade and an opinion of the overall "fabric" of the coin (and maybe there are faint hairlines or friction that might be worth a point or two off the overall grade), but to me the current holder is worse than useless in determining the value of the piece, too many people would by reflex not want anything to do with this coin at any price point whatsoever while it's in that plastic, and would consider a "fair" net grade and value to be less than Zero. And to me, this attitude is probably the biggest problem in numismatics, and maybe Julian is saying as much with this listing, and a couple of his others that I referenced earlier (the early dime and half dime) to me these are dream coins that I'd be very proud to own. In fact, I have a few coins that have details and "net" grades that I'm very proud of and wouldn't sell for less than my price based on my net grade opinion, which in a "problem" holder is far less than such a rare and desirable coin should be worth, relative to the population. It's a shame that modern TPG and FPG grading tries to boil the value of a coin down to an interger (or not) and a sticker (or not)
But the picture you're referencing and calling a beautiful coin is the picture from the old MS63 holder, not the newer, cleaned holder. Your defending of the seller's auction has just as many ethical issues as the seller's auction itself. The MS63 holdered coin NO LONGER EXISTS in that PCGS grade opinion and you don't know what doctoring was done to the coin between the MS63 holder and the cleaned holder. Judge the coin in its present condition, not a past condition.
Judge ye not least ye be judged.
Those that have not sinned cast this first stone.
Man didn't any of your parents teach you common decency?
Ironically, you're judging some within this thread for writing their opinions.
Yada yada sis boom ba~
I left out the Golden Rule
No, I'm looking at all the pictures available to me: those in the listing (which shows the coin in 3 different holders, note the prongs) and the above trueview.
It's not clear to me that anything was "done" to the coin other than different plastic and photographic lighting/technique
Note that the picture comparison earlier in the thread isn't of the current NGC white prong "unc/cleaned" holder, it's the previous PCGS prong and some other "no prong" holder, maybe even earlier PCGS
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
If you look at his sold auctions, probably 95% were sold at best offer, so no way to see what prices he actually found the market willing to pay. But he does like to start high.
If you have "terapeak", you can find out exactl what every "Best Offer" coin sold for.
Or paste the item number in the yellow block at this link and then hit enter.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
I've enjoyed reading this thread.
+1
My YouTube Channel
If YOU are one of a very few who believe a coin is of a certain quality, (be it grade, cleaning status, eye appeal, etc), then you may enjoy the coin, but may never get your investment back. So be careful....
There does seem to be a lot of coins in inventory here that have this "special status" caution flag flying....
Coin Rarities Online